Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Bondi Testifies Before Congress; Trump Orders Troops to Chicago; Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is Interviewed Bondi's Testimony. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired October 07, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Explaining all that to us. We appreciate it.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, this morning, new video shows a man breaking into the Washington state capitol. He crashed his car, then used a hammer to smash his way inside. You can see him knocking over flags and setting small fires in the state reception room. Troopers arrested him within 11 minutes after worker spotted the break in on security cameras.

In Louisiana, a restaurant server helped save a customer from choking. The man started struggling and signaled for help. The server, who is a high school student, rushed over and performed the Heimlich maneuver. That's why it's good to take that training.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

We are standing by to hear from Attorney General Pam Bondi any second now. She faces questions from lawmakers. A live look at the hearing room right now. Questions on everything from political investigations, to National Guard troops in cities, to Jeffrey Epstein.

This morning, dramatic, new video of a medical helicopter falling from a sky onto a highway. New reporting on what happened after it crashed.

And terrifying strides and deepfake A.I. videos. Hackers are now figuring out new ways to get you to give up sensitive information.

I'm John Berman, with Sara Sidner and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: We are standing by to hear from the attorney general of the United States. Pam Bondi set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. You're taking a live look at that hearing room right now as they are all getting ready. She will be beginning any moment now.

This is the first time that she is doing so since her confirmation hearing back in January. The attorney general, because of that, and just because of where we are right now, expected to face some very big questions, like about the mounting legal challenges against the president deploying National Guard troops to cities like Chicago and Portland, Oregon, and the president's willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act to take his immigration crackdown even further.

Senator Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on this committee, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke to John Berman this morning. Here's what he said just last hour.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): He's stretching it way beyond the language of the law. He knows it. But that's the way he does things. He's going to do what he wants to do and let the courts see if they can stop him.

These men and women in the National Guard are serving our country in every state. Now they're being used as political pawns for the political theater of President Trump.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Beyond troop deployments, Bondi is likely to also face questions about, among others, the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, which critics have said is an extraordinary escalation of the president's aims to punish his political enemies. And then there's also the ongoing calls for the Justice Department to release all of the case files on Jeffrey Epstein. She is likely to face questions about that.

CNN's Evan Perez joining us right now.

And, Evan, you're going to be standing by. You are there basically in the committee hearing room, and you're going to be watching all of this play out. What's expected?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Kate, look, I'm looming over the -- the congressional hearing room right now.

Look, if the last few hearings are any indicator, we're going to see a lot of fiery, you know, back and forth between Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and some of the Republicans and some of the Democrats here in this -- in this hearing room.

You mentioned some of the things that are top of mind, including, of course, the Jeffrey Epstein files, which, obviously, there's a number of -- there's a bipartisan group that is still pushing for those files to be released. And then, of course, there's the firings of people, including of President Trump's own U.S. attorney nominee in the Eastern District of Virginia because he was resisting bringing some of the cases that the president wants against his political enemies. Of course, that is including the case against -- against former FBI Director James Comey, who is set to be arraigned tomorrow in Alexandria, Virginia.

We also have questions about the Justice Department's role in authorizing, or in -- or in at least blessing some of these attacks on so-called drug boats in the Caribbean, which is something that is raising concerns, not only for Democrats, but also among some Republicans who want to know what is the legal authorization that the Justice Department has provided to the Defense Department in order to carry out some of these attacks, these extraordinary attacks, they're extrajudicial judicial killings, essentially, that are that the U.S. military is carrying out in the name of saving the United States from some of the -- the drugs that are being trafficked.

[09:05:01]

So, you can expect a lot of those types of questions that will be coming to her, including, of course, the one that you just addressed with Senator Durbin, which is, you know, what is the end game here with the federal crackdown that is going on in some of these cities, including sending in the National Guard and whether the president is going to do the thing that Stephen Miller and other people have been pushing, which is to declare the Insurrection Act. All of those things are a top of mind right now in this hearing room before the attorney general takes the stand.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely and very -- and very famously before this committee, during confirmation hearing, Pam Bondi said that she would make sure that politics stayed out of the Justice Department. And likely to face questions about how that has happened since.

PEREZ: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Evan is there for us. We're going to be dipping in. This is going to be a very big moment for the attorney general, the Justice Department, the administration and the Congress.

Evan, thank you so much.

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, thank you, Kate.

This morning, a post from the Texas governor showing National Guard troops boarding a military plane. The governor of Illinois says those troops from Texas are being sent to Chicago. All part of President Trump's push to deploy troops in cities and states run by Democrats. Pritzker calls it an unconstitutional invasion, and the state has filed a lawsuit to stop it.

Now, a federal judge has weighed in already. They have a decision allowing the deployment to Chicago, but they gave the Trump administration until Wednesday night to respond to the Illinois lawsuit.

CNN's Alayna Treene is live at the White House. What is the very latest in this battle now, not just between Trump and these cities and their governors of the states, but also other states now getting involved here?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: No, absolutely. And we're seeing, you know, the National Guard, as you mentioned, being deployed from Texas, from California, because the president had called on them to go to these different Democratic-led cities to -- to respond to what the president argues is violent crime in the streets, protests on ICE facilities, things that the leadership in these cities are arguing is just not happening at the level that the Trump administration is describing it.

But I think one of the latest turns to all of this is what we heard the president say yesterday because, of course, we are seeing a lot of what this administration is trying to do, face heavy pushback from the courts. And essentially the president was asked in the Oval Office yesterday, Sara, whether or not he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act. That is an 1807 federal law that would essentially allow the president to federalize the National Guard, send the U.S. military into some of these cities, be -- arguing that there is an insurrection against the United States happening in these cities.

And the president didn't rule it out. He said he's not considering it right now. But if the courts continue to stand in his way, he would be open to using it.

Listen to what he said and then also the response from the Illinois governor, J.B. Pritzker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that's all insurrection. I really think that's really criminal insurrection.

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: It is domestic terrorism. It is insurrection. And no amount of insane, hyperventilating lies from Pritzker or Johnson or any other Democratic official will change our minds on that.

GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): Donald Trump's deranged depiction of Chicago as a hellhole, a war zone, and the worst and most dangerous city in the world was just complete BS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So, as you see there, Sara, very different accounts from the president, from Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff to the -- to Donald Trump, who, of course, is one of the architects of all of this, these plans to go into these cities and really try to crack down on immigration and crime. But Pritzker, governor of Illinois, a Democratic governor, arguing that this is just not -- what's happening in Chicago is not as bad as the Trump administration is making it out to be.

All to say, this is going to be a heavy battle fought in the courts. And as we've seen with the Trump administration in the past, they don't shy away from those. And I've heard that in my conversations with people in that building behind me. They are saying that they welcome this fight. They want to see how far they can take this. And they are pressing the bounds of their executive authority, but they argue that it is within the president's right to do this. All of that, of course, still needs to be decided by the judges in these different cases.

SIDNER: Yes. And sometimes pushing it all the way to the Supreme Court is what has happened many, many times.

Alayna Treene, thank you for your reporting this morning. Appreciate it.

John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and Elie Honig.

Councilors, great to be with you.

We are watching this hearing room very closely. The attorney general set to begin very shortly. Actually, they're running a little bit late, which is a little bit rare for hearings like this. But they are set to begin shortly.

Elie, let me start with you here because the attorney general is in the center of so many hot button issues here.

[09:10:02]

Were you given ten minutes to question her, what would you ask?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, three big topics. So, the first one, I think, is -- is the prosecution of Jim Comey and other politically driven prosecutions. I would ask her --she's not going to admit, yes, this is all political, this is all horrible. A question I think that might be constructive of that was, who has the final say over prosecution? You as attorney general or the president of the United States? And would you resign as A.G. if you disagreed?

Then the National Guard issue that we were just talking about. I think I would ask her, in your view, as attorney general of the United States, does the president have complete unilateral authority to declare emergencies or do the courts have any role at all in reviewing that?

And finally, on the Jeffrey Epstein files, I think the bottom line question everyone wants to know is, is there anyone other than Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell who there's any information about committed a crime in the entirety of your files? Is there any other person out there, other than those two, who, according to your information, may have committed a crime? We still don't have an answer to that.

BERMAN: Elliot, as we wait, what questions do you have?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think everything comes down to that which the attorney general can't say is political or whatever else. It's one question, John, did you order the code red in effect? And you can apply that virtually to every aspect of the things that, quite frankly, Elie was talking about here. Number one, did you overrule the advice of career attorneys at the Justice Department when deciding to, a, fire Jim Comey, b, you know, interdict drug boats? Number three, terminate people in the Eastern District of Virginia. Everything that transcends politics and transcends Democratic and Republican issues, John, because that's a problem within the Justice Department if, in fact, there is a systematic pattern of the political leadership of the Justice Department disregarding the advice of career attorneys. That -- you know, that's a problem that, quite frankly, both Democrats and Republicans should be -- should be concerned about.

And so I think the most impactful questions, and I say this as someone who was counsel to this very committee for two and a half years, the most impactful questions are the ones that don't sound partisan and are really just about good government. And where have you, madam attorney general, failed in ensuring that the -- that the rule of law has been protected. And there are a number of very obvious places where those questions can be asked in a way, by either Democrat or Republican, that she really doesn't have a great answer for.

BERMAN: The attorney general is now sitting down. I can bet you the answer to the question, did you order the code red, will not be as it was in the movie, you're damn right I did. It almost never is in these hearings.

Again, we're watching the attorney general get ready right here.

One of the things I know we will hear about today, as Democrats press on the weaponization of the Justice Department, is this new reporting that did come out overnight, that Jack Smith's team, special counsel team, used the FBI to obtain phone records from nine Republican lawmakers. Court orders to obtain phone records from nine Republican lawmakers. I actually asked Democratic Senator Dick Durbin about this just a few minutes ago. Listen to his answer about whether he thought on its face he had questions or it was appropriate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): I do have concerns about it, and it should be investigated. What we're seeing is the politicization and the weaponization of the Department of Justice under President Trump. That doesn't excuse any other president's conduct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Elie, what do you think about that?

HONIG: A really interesting answer. I mean, candid, right? He said, basically, we're seeing politicization now by Donald Trump, but that does not excuse anything that may have come before. It appears, on its face, that was an extremely aggressive, probably overly aggressive move by Jack Smith. And ultimately he may have to answer questions. Why did you think it was appropriate and necessary to subpoena the records of sitting U.S. members of Congress? That's a very dramatic move. And look, it doesn't mean he's committed a crime, but I think that's a perfectly legitimate question he may have to answer.

By the way, on the code red, I'm going to disagree with you. It would not shock me if Pam Bondi says, you're darn right I overruled my career prosecutors. You know why? I'm the one who's politically accountable. I'm the one who's nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate. And if I overrule U.S. attorneys, that's my job as attorney general. I would not -- I've heard her say things like that in the past, and there's some validity to that.

I -- listen, I'm a career prosecutor. I always err on that side. They certainly know the case better than the A.G. But A.G.s have rank. And it wouldn't shock me to say, yes, I did.

BERMAN: Elliot, I am -- I'm curious because you said you did serve as counsel to committees like this, advising senators. One thing that we have learned from watching decades of Senate hearings is how senators often like to hear from themselves more than they like to hear the actual answers to the questions here. So, what would you advise them to ask if they do want to shine light on actual issues and get actual answers here?

WILLIAMS: Right. It's a question of, who is your audience and to whom are you speaking? Are you speaking to your constituents in the third district of Oklahoma, or are you speaking to swing voters, or are you speaking to, quite frankly, the other 99 senators who could, you know, vote to -- to confirm the next attorney general of the United States?

[09:15:05]

You know, I think that the most important audience is the American people who ought to be skeptical of any number of the actions being taken by the attorney general of the United States. And there are any number of questions that can be asked.

And again, I'm going to disagree back with Elie on this point. Yes, of course the attorney -- the buck stops with the attorney general. There's no question about that. But there are serious questions starting with, for instance, the, you know, the termination or at least the sidelining of a senior official in the Eastern District of Virginia that even if -- even if the decision was made by her, that is a problematic decision being made by an attorney general. And the Senate ought to serve as the body to ask those questions, not gotcha, not political games, but just, is this the way we want our government to be working? And it's -- it's -- it's a gray area because, of course, yes, she's the boss, yes, she's accountable to the president, but she's also accountable to the American people. And there are fair questions that ought to be asked here.

All right, gentlemen, don't go far because we're going to listen to a bunch of this hearing. And we don't know which way it's going to go. They could ask any number of questions in any number of directions, so, stand by. We're going to want your take on it once it does get going and underway.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Keeping a very close eye on that.

And also, a new threat coming from President Trump to deploy the National Guard and maybe even more to American cities if those so far Democratic led states don't play along.

Plus, Canada's economy is in trouble. And now the prime minister there is headed to Washington to talk tariffs. How's that going to go considering how that relationship has been.

And deepfakes of top executives costing companies millions of dollars. The new scam that is taking off in a big way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:59]

BOLDUAN: All right, we're going to show you, see that split screen right there? You're looking at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of Attorney General Pam Bondi, her first time sitting before the panel. The -- her first testimony before the panel since her confirmation hearing back in January. She is no doubt preparing for and likely to face some heated questions over a number of things that she really is at the center of, Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, Donald Trump's firing of career prosecutors, DOJ charging former FBI Director James Comey, the Trump administration's extrajudicial attacks of alleged drug boats in international waters, and the Justice Department dragging its feet to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.

What you're looking at right there is the committee chairman, Chuck Grassley. He's speaking now. And we are going to continue to monitor and bring you all of the high points that -- as they -- as they get underway.

Joining us right now here in studio is Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee -- Judiciary Committee.

Thank you so much for being here.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Of course. Good morning.

BOLDUAN: The president -- let's talk first -- one element of this that I find fascinating is that the president, amongst a lot of what he has pushed the Justice Department to do is, is push Pam Bondi, at least openly, and suggested it, to open a criminal investigation into many critics, including Adam Schiff.

SWALWELL: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you're Adam Schiff, what are you going to ask today?

SWALWELL: Will you recuse yourself from making any decisions about a case involving me or anyone else that the president has identified as an enemy? And by the way, Kash Patel, he wrote a book, he wrote out 60 people who he called government gangsters. He put me and Adam Schiff at the very top. I asked Kash Patel a couple weeks ago, will you recuse yourself from investigating those individuals because you clearly had it out for these people before you came into government? He said, no. But the real question, Kate, is, it's not about Adam Schiff. It's not

about me or the people you ticked off at the top there, James Comey, Tish James, John Bolton. Most Americans want to know, like, what are you doing to protect us from terrorism, us from public corruption, us from child sex trafficking? If the FBI and the Department of Justice are so focused on going after the president's enemies, are we sacrificing our ability to protect ourselves on the homeland?

BOLDUAN: But how do you get -- how do you get to those answers? Let's be honest. I mean, if you look at -- OK, take the Kash Patel hearing. I'm just thinking about the moments you have with them.

SWALWELL: Yes.

BOLDUAN: I mean, that was quite a back and forth between you and Kash Patel. You were -- what you're talking about was actually Pam Bondi and the Jeffrey Epstein files. But how are you going to get to serious questions like that when what often happens is pure theatrics and histrionics?

SWALWELL: Well, its math, right? How many agents now are working on immigration cases rather than terrorism, public corruption, child sex trafficking? I mean, you can ask them those questions. They don't want to answer those questions. Or how much, like, institutional knowledge has been lost because they're going after people who worked on the president's search warrants.

There were five mass shootings two weekends ago within 24 hours. People want to know, are they protected in their community or is the Department of Justice just protecting Donald Trump from his perceived political enemies?

BOLDUAN: I mentioned the -- Jeffrey Epstein and a big question remains of what the Justice Department is doing, or actually what they really aren't doing and why. During that hearing with Kash Patel, you got into a serious back -- what was it, nine times you asked if -- if he had told the attorney general that Trump's name was in the file.

Actually, I think we are just now -- let me take a look at -- show me the live -- show me the hearing, guys.

The ranking Democrat on the committee hearing -- in -- in -- on the committee is now speaking.

Let's listen to Dick Durbin just a little bit, Congressman.

SEN. DICK DURBAN (D-IL): (INAUDIBLE) just one example of how President Trump and Attorney General Bondi shut down justice at the Department of Justice even before the president's party controlling the White House, Senate and House of Representatives shut down the government.

[09:25:10]

The attorney general has systematically weaponized our nation's leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies and attack his opponents and, sadly, the American people. You have purged hundreds of senior career officials since you first

appeared before us. These men and women had dedicated their careers to protecting the American people. As a result, the department has lost literally thousands of years of law enforcement expertise. To be specific, you disbanded the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force and the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement team, despite the growing threat of foreign election interference and the drastic rise in cryptocurrency crimes. You forced out almost 75 percent of the Civil Rights Division's career attorneys, while hate crimes are on the rise. You fired more than 100 immigration judges while the immigration case backlog is more than 3 million. You cut the public integrity section from 30 prosecutors to two, while political corruption skyrockets.

During your confirmation hearing, I asked you about your many potential conflicts of interest as a former lobbyist. You responded under oath, quote, you "will consult with career ethics officials within the department and make the appropriate decision," end of quote. But the Justice Department then removed those career ethics officials and put in their place inexperienced political appointees beholden to the president and you. And you've effectively shut down the office of --

BOLDUAN: All right, so, Dick Durbin there, beginning to list out all of the things that Democrats for sure are going to be asking the attorney general about during this hearing.

Back to what I wanted to ask you, though, about Jeffrey Epstein, which is on that list I am sure.

The newly elected Democratic congresswoman, Adelita Grijalva, was on the show just yesterday, Congressman.

SWALWELL: I saw.

BOLDUAN: You saw that. And she -- she thinks that there is a connection between the fact that there has been an unusual delay in her getting actually sworn in by the House speaker and the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Let me play, just to remind people what she said.

SWALWELL: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADELITA GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA CONGRESSWOMAN-ELECT: I am hearing that. And -- and I am going to be the 218th signer to the discharge petition. So, that is the only thing that most people are pointing to.

Speaker Johnson has closed down votes in the recent past to avoid a vote on the Epstein files. So, there does seem to be a connection.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: She would be the 218th vote. SWALWELL: They're not convincing me that there's not something there

that hurts the president. I've been in Congress for 13 years. I've never seen us out for almost a month during a non-August recess time.

BOLDUAN: Right.

SWALWELL: We're in October. You know, we have a government shutdown where lawmakers should be in Washington negotiating. And we were sent home indefinitely. You can only conclude that they don't want to vote where you know that you're going to have 350, probably 400 members of Congress who will vote for it. So, he's just protecting those members from having to take that vote.

But what are in the files that has -- that are worth keeping the government shutdown, preventing negotiations? You would just conclude it, they're protecting Donald Trump. There's no other logical explanation.

BOLDUAN: Well, I have to -- on the government shutdown, I just had Matt Egan on. He's our business reporter. And he's been talking to contract workers who -- they may not get back pay because they're contract workers.

SWALWELL: Yes.

BOLDUAN: And what the -- what the people he's talking to said is, stop this. Stop messing with people. We have families. I don't know how I'm going to feed my kids or pay my mortgage, as this -- as this woman was fighting back tears and talking to Matt Egan.

I say -- but I'll pose the question this way. How do you explain to constituents, like that --

SWALWELL: Yes.

BOLDUAN: I mean she lives in Maryland, though, but regardless. How do you explain to them that while hold -- holding out for health care subsidies --

SWALWELL: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Which they may want and may agree with, why that is worth it if they expire at the end of the year. But right now the government's shut down and this woman might not be able to pay her bills. How do you defend that?

SWALWELL: Yes. Well, first, I'd say, Republicans own (ph) the White House, the Senate and the House. They don't need a single Democratic vote (INAUDIBLE) --

BOLDUAN: They do in the Senate. That's how this goes. You know this.

SWALWELL: They don't. They could break the filibuster. They could -- it takes 50 votes to break the filibuster. They could break the filibuster. And they should own this budget that takes away people's health care. Democrats aren't asking for any new policy. We're saying that the

subsidies that have always been in place, as we go into open enrollment, which starts on November 1, so that's just 24 days away, people should know that their health care is going to be affordable. But if the Republicans don't want to work with us on that, they have the votes. They can break the filibuster and open their government. We just don't want to cosign on a government that takes health care away from people.

BOLDUAN: It's been -- I've seen a lot of government shutdowns. There has not been one where it seems that the outcome seems very grim and there is no end in sight, like this one, in a long time.

[09:30:04]

Thank you for coming in. I really appreciate your time.

SWALWELL: My pleasure.

BOLDUAN: We're going to keep a very close eye on that Senate Judiciary